A recent investigation by RFE/RL’s Schemes unit revealed that a senior Russian commander shared a meme among fellow officers that read, ‘It’s not a war crime if it was fun.’ The sentiment is shocking, but it is not surprising—particularly given the context in which it was shared: alongside messages documenting the mutilation of prisoners, the torture of captives, and the execution of surrendering soldiers.
It captures, in one grotesque sentence, a military culture that has long treated the laws of armed conflict as optional, inconvenient, or even laughable. As Ukraine enters the fourth year of resisting Russia’s full‑scale invasion, it is time to confront a painful truth: the Russian armed forces have a century‑long record of ignoring the rules that govern civilized warfare. Their conduct is not an accident of the moment. It is a pattern—deeply rooted, historically consistent, and institutionally reinforced.
This pattern cheapens the very idea of professional soldiering. It insults the profession of arms, which is built on discipline, honor, and respect for human dignity. Russia’s armed forces have repeatedly chosen a different path—one that hearkens back to the darkest eras of human conflict.
A Century of Disregard: From the Eastern Front to the Present
During World War II, the Red Army fought with extraordinary sacrifice against Nazi Germany, but its conduct toward civilians in Eastern Europe and Germany revealed a willingness to use terror as a tool of war. The laws of armed conflict existed then, and the Soviet Union was bound by them, yet violations were widespread and often tolerated by commanders.
The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s continued this pattern. Indiscriminate attacks, punitive operations against villages, and disregard for civilian life were not isolated incidents—they were part of a deliberate strategy. The Soviet military’s approach relied on overwhelming force rather than precision, legality, or restraint.
Chechnya and Syria: The Modernization of Old Brutality
The Chechen wars of the 1990s and early 2000s further cemented Russia’s reputation for brutality. Urban centers were devastated, civilians were targeted, and the distinction between combatants and non‑combatants was routinely ignored. The message was unmistakable: cruelty was not a failure of discipline—it was a method.
In Syria, Russia exported this model of warfare to support the Assad regime. Civilian infrastructure, humanitarian convoys, and medical facilities were repeatedly struck. The pattern was familiar: when faced with resistance, Russia resorts to collective punishment and intimidation of civilian populations.
Ukraine: A Return to the Dark Ages
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought these practices back to Europe. The world has witnessed attacks on residential areas, mistreatment of detainees, and a cavalier disregard for civilian life. The meme—’It’s not a war crime if it was fun’—is not merely a grotesque joke among officers. It is a reflection of a military culture that sees brutality as permissible, even admirable.
Professional armed forces are defined not only by their ability to fight but by their adherence to law. Russia’s armed forces have repeatedly demonstrated contempt for that standard. Their conduct does not reflect the discipline of a modern military; it reflects the behavior of forces operating outside the boundaries of lawful warfare. It is blatant and unrestrained mass destruction.
Moral Clarity: Why This Must Be Called Out
Silence enables impunity. The international community must be unequivocal: Russia’s conduct is illegal, immoral, and incompatible with the norms that govern civilized nations. Calling out these violations is not merely symbolic—it is essential to preserving the integrity of the laws of armed conflict themselves.
Ukraine’s soldiers have shown extraordinary professionalism under unimaginable pressure. Their restraint stands in stark contrast to Russia’s lawlessness. The difference between the two militaries is not only tactical—it is moral.
Institutional Mechanisms: Accountability Is the Only Path Forward
The establishment of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine is a historic step toward accountability. But accountability must extend beyond political leaders. Commanders who encourage or tolerate violations must be held responsible. A military culture that celebrates cruelty must face legal and moral consequences.
The International Criminal Court’s issuance of arrest warrants—including against Putin himself for the war crime of unlawful deportation of children—is an important step in seeking justice for the people of Ukraine.
The world cannot allow Russia’s model of warfare to become normalized. If the laws of armed conflict are to mean anything, they must apply to all states, including those with powerful armies and permanent seats on the UN Security Council.
The profession of arms is built on honor, discipline, and respect for human dignity. Russia’s armed forces have repeatedly betrayed these principles. Their conduct in Ukraine is not the result of confusion or battlefield chaos—it is the continuation of a long, deliberate pattern.
The sentiment “It’s not a war crime if it was fun” should shock the conscience. It should also galvanize action. The world must reject this perverse worldview and reaffirm that the laws of war are not optional. They are the foundation of civilized conflict, and they must be defended—especially when they are under assault.
David M. Crane is a global leader in international criminal justice and the founding Chief Prosecutor of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone. He has spent decades shaping accountability mechanisms around the world, including serving as a driving force behind the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. Crane is a distinguished scholar of international law, a former senior US national security official and serving officer in the US Army, and a leading voice on the rule of law, state responsibility, and the legal limits on the use of force.
